Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALVIN TERRELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-758)

Submitted:

September 23, 2005

Decided:

October 26, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, L.L.C., Greenville, South


Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Calvin Terrell Williams pled guilty to two counts of
armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), (d) (2000), and was
sentenced to 125 months imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
addressing whether Williams was competent to testify, whether the
district

court

erred

in

denying

minor

role

adjustment

at

sentencing, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3B1.2


(2000), and whether Williams sentence violates United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Although advised of his right to

file a supplemental pro se brief, Williams has not done so.


Counsel first addresses Williams competency to enter a
guilty plea.

We have reviewed the transcript of Williams Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 hearing and conclude that the district court properly


ensured that Williams was competent to plead guilty and that his
plea was knowing and voluntary.

See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S.

389, 400 (1993); United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th
Cir. 1999).
Next, counsel questions the district courts denial of a minor
role adjustment at sentencing.

Here, Williams either directly

planned or, at the very least, materially helped carry out both
robberies, was present when the robberies took place, and received
some of the proceeds.

Accordingly, the district court did not

- 2 -

clearly err in denying Williams a minor participant adjustment.


United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 1989)
(providing standard of review for factual determinations, such as
whether the appellants conduct warrants a minor role sentencing
reduction).
Finally, counsel raises as a potential issue the validity
of Williams sentence under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005).

We review issues raised for the first time on appeal for

plain error.

See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th

Cir. 2005).

In Hughes, we held that when a sentence calculated

under

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

exceeds

the

maximum

sentence

authorized by facts found by the jury alone or admitted by the


defendant,

the

defendant

could

demonstrate

warranted resentencing under Booker.


did

not

commit

constitutional

plain

error

that

We find the district court

error,

plain

or

otherwise,

in

sentencing Williams because the term of imprisonment is not greater


than that authorized by facts admitted by him at his plea hearing
and at sentencing.

Nor can Williams demonstrate that any error in

imposing his sentence under a mandatory guidelines scheme affected


his substantial rights.

See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208

(4th Cir. 2005).


As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
in this case and found no error.
convictions and sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm Williams

This court requires that counsel inform

- 3 -

Williams, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of


the United States for further review.

If Williams requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would


be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsels motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on Williams.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

- 4 -